Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer that question and for me I bet I'm not consistent day to day or hour to hour. To try to put into words what I think is goin

Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer that question and for me I bet I'm not consistent day to day or hour to hour. To try to put into words what I think is going on in my head: I link based on something in the piece that I think folks here will find interesting. But I don't assume that the title will be sufficient. Only that it will be a primer for following the link. In this case, the given title wasn't good. So I tried to pick out the primer that led to my saying: "That's interesting". But admittedly I won't spend more than a few seconds thinking about the title. I'm just not too worried about accuracy so long as it's in the general semantic ballpark. I'd say if it leads to an incomplete impression which the article resolves then I'm okay with it. That's why I added the ellipse. Sorry, I'll try to do better but I'll probably fail. The bookmarklet makes it easy to just throw up interesting stuff. The title for me is simply a shorthand for saying: This was interesting to me. I similarly interpret upvotes - this was interesting to the community. Comments start to get at accuracy - kind of. To be honest though, even as Gladwell says that second part, it seems to me he wants real world experience informing journalism. I think that's the most interesting bit. Grad school, it seems to me, is itself sheltered from "real" stories. That's my current bias, I guess.